Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

But hey, why do the right thing and follow the rules when you don't have to?

No-Show Senator Kerry Takes Home Full Senate Paycheck Jonathan M. SteinFriday, June 18, 2004 John Kerry, the Democratic Party?s presumptive nominee for President of the United States, has been taking advantage of American taxpayers ? and he should be ashamed of himself.

Title 2, Section 39, of the United States Code clearly states that ?[t]he Secretary of the Senate ... shall deduct from the [salary] of each Member ... the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate ... unless such Member ... assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family."

Story Continues Below

The plain and unambiguous meaning of this statute is that a Senator who misses work doesn?t get paid ? just like ordinary Americans. Unfortunately, the Secretary of the Senate, Ms. Emily Reynolds, has improperly, and inappropriately, declined to carry out her statutory duty ? i.e. to dock the pay of Senators who miss work. When pressed, Ms. Reynolds explained, in a response to a letter by David Keene of the Carmen Group, that since her predecessors in the position failed to carry out the law, she won?t either. This reasoning is absurd ? and unlawful.

An officer of the Senate is bound by the law as it applies to that officer. When the law states that an officer of the Senate ?shall? do something, that officer is bound to carry out the mandate of the law. If individuals were free to ignore the law as they pleased, our society would fall apart. The Secretary of the Senate is no exception ? she is not above the law. Her failure to carry out the mandate of Title 2, Section 39 is a clear violation of federal law. However, ultimate culpability does not end with Ms. Reynolds.

Ignorance of the law, in American society, is never a valid defense to the commission of an unlawful act ? thus, all Americans are charged with knowledge of the law. Lawyers, who are, ideally, learned in the law, should be held to a higher standard; though it sounds like an oxymoron, they are indeed held to a standard of lawyers? ethics.

A United States Senator, charged with promulgating the law, and especially a Senator who is a lawyer, thus, must be held to the highest standard of legal and ethical conduct. John Kerry is both a Senator and a lawyer. As such, Senator Kerry is charged with knowledge of the law and must be held to the highest standard of legal and ethical conduct. In this respect, Kerry is a ?miserable failure.?

John Kerry is charged with knowing that the Secretary of the Senate is to dock his pay when he fails to show up for work ? and that there is no exception in the law for campaign activities. Thus, any payment made to a Senator in violation of Title 2, Section 39 is an illegal payment of funds from the U.S. Treasury and, legally speaking, theft of taxpayer money ? John Kerry is presumed to know that these payments are illegal. Therefore, by knowingly accepting these illegal payments, Senator Kerry himself is breaking the law.

While, of course, this rationale applies to all Senators, John Kerry warrants special condemnation: Senator Kerry is running for President and he has the most dismal attendance record in the Senate; Kerry has been absent, without valid excuse, 87 percent of the time this session! Ergo, John Kerry is the most flagrant offender ? and ?everyone is doing it? is not a reasonable excuse. Further, an ordinary American who is absent from their job 87 percent of the time wouldn?t merely be docked pay ? that person would be fired!

In the interest of restoring the rule of law, I have personally filed a formal ethics complaint against both Senator Kerry and the Secretary of the Senate with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, which has jurisdiction over this matter. It is quite sad that it takes the efforts of a mere law student to force a candidate for the Presidency to obey the law that, if successful, he will be sworn to uphold himself.

This matter draws yet another bright line between Senator Kerry and President Bush. When then-Governor Bush ran for President, he declined to accept his salary, as Governor, when he needed to campaign full time ? even though Texas law did not require him to do so. On the other hand, though Unites States law requires Kerry not to accept his salary when he campaigns full time and cannot be present in the Senate, Kerry has opted to accept his salary illegally.

Jonathan Stein is on staff at the Hofstra Law Review and has been published in the Washington Times, Brown Daily Herald, NewsMax.com and The Committee for Justice.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Quote:Title 2, Section 39, of the United States Code clearly states that ?[t]he Secretary of the Senate... shall deduct from the [salary] of each Member ... the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate ... unless such Member ... assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family."

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Weak. Just because others have done so does not mean that he is required to. He is not the one violating the law. The Secretary of the Senate is. Before I even clicked that link, I knew it was going to be another bullshit piece of whiney propaganda from NewsMax. Some things never change.

Quote: Before I even clicked that link, I knew it was going to be another bullshit piece of whiney propaganda from NewsMax.

Yes, your amazing ability to make predictions.... oh wait.... perhaps it was because it clearly states in the blurb at the bottom..... Jonathan Stein is on staff at the Hofstra Law Review and has been published in the Washington Times, Brown Daily Herald, NewsMax.com and The Committee for Justice.

Yup.... you're certainly amazing.

But now back to the topic at hand. are you saying you think it's OK that the taxpayers are paying this slacker to do a job, yet he's not doing it? Could you or any other average Joe get away with the same?

If he has the courage of his convictions, if he truly believes he can win, should he not resign and let the taxpayers get their monies worth from someone who will do the job?

What's weak is you focusing on the source of the article and on the Secretary of the Senate. She shouldn't pay him, but he should resign. Or at the very least refuse the check.

But hey, he's your man so it's OK I guess.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Quote: Before I even clicked that link, I knew it was going to be another bullshit piece of whiney propaganda from NewsMax.

Yes, your amazing ability to make predictions.... oh wait.... perhaps it was because it clearly states in the blurb at the bottom..... Jonathan Stein is on staff at the Hofstra Law Review and has been published in the Washington Times, Brown Daily Herald, NewsMax.com and The Committee for Justice.

Yup.... you're certainly amazing.

I didn't have to scroll down that far.

Quote:But now back to the topic at hand. are you saying you think it's OK that the taxpayers are paying this slacker to do a job, yet he's not doing it?

No, but the blame lies sqarely on the Secretary of the Senate, not John Kerry.

Quote:Could you or any other average Joe get away with the same?

Get away with what? Being on the payroll for not working? It's the problem of the people in charge of such things, not the people recieving the pay.

Quote:If he has the courage of his convictions, if he truly believes he can win, should he not resign and let the taxpayers get their monies worth from someone who will do the job?

No, he should fire the Secretary of the Senate(if that's in his constitutional powers).

Quote:What's weak is you focusing on the source of the article and on the Secretary of the Senate. She shouldn't pay him, but he should resign. Or at the very least refuse the check.

Maybe resigning would be taking the moral high ground, but that would be going above and beyond the call of duty. It would be exemplary of him to do so, but it should not be expected of him, even if others have done so.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Follow the strain isolation technique on Let's Grow Mushrooms, and then select sectors early which are brown in color. By the second or third transfer, you'll see stones developing, and this is only about 1 month after the original swipe of spores on agar.

Now, take each stone and move it to a new dish. Soon, the mycelium will grow out and you'll see fresh stones developing, and if they're good strains, the sclerotia is forming long before the mycelium reaches the edge of the plate. Pick strains which form four or five stones within two weeks and use these for your grain masters. -- RR

Quote:silversoul7 said:No, I save my best material for those whose posts warrant it.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Quote: All the other politicians who recieved payment contrary to this law should have to pay it back.

Quote: As to whether they should be allowed to keep their job, that should be up to their constituency.

You seem to have forgotten we're talking about MassHoles. You know... the same people who keep putting "The Swimmer" back into office.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Right. Not feeling good today? Or just not putting the required amount of thought?

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Weak man. Somebody hurt your feelings today? Or are you still pissed because of your rate and the moronic statement you made?

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers